Keep Politics Out Of Wildlife Management!

[Tim Smith]

I love that "population level effects" phrase. There is a vast amount of science showing that ducks and other birds that ingest lead shot get sick and die. But apparently the NRA is saying that not enough of them die to depress overall populations, and therefore nobody should have to use non-lead shot. What is being ignored is that if we went back to using lead shot in heavily used duck hunting areas, we would be adding more and more lead shot to what is already there from years past. The more shot that is lying on the bottom, the more gets ingested by ducks. The more that gets ingested, the more ducks die. The reason for the ban on lead shot in the first place is that we were STARTING to see problems with ducks dying for lead shot. If we go back to using lead shot, at some point, there will be enough shot lying around that enough ducks will be dying that it just MIGHT have "population level" effects. But no...let's go back to using lead shot until that happens...except then it will be pretty much too late.

Oh, and by the way, I also liked the phrase "there are many examples of (the conservation commission becoming more and more motivated by politics and emotion)" but they don't name any of them except the lead shot bans. I'd like to see their other examples if they have them.

Wayne LaPierre: But if the bullets aren't made out of lead, that infringes on the right to bear arms! Jackbooted thugs are on the doorstep!!

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/leadqanda.html

[oneshot]

Don't they allow centerfire handguns during regular gun season?

If it's a muzzel loading season, they should keep it at that.

Yes and no Inlines!

oneshot

[oneshot]

Pile on time.

First thing I do (and most other black powder hunters) is reload as the deer runs off in the smoke, if you wait properly for the deer to expire you have plenty of time to reload. Even with a 30-06 I wait 20-30 minutes if I don't physically see the deer die. Rarely have I been chased up a tree by a "suffering wounded deer", and if I do get treed I'm sure the reloaded .50 cal will take care of it just as easily as a handgun, if not I have no business black powder hunting in the first place. This would seem to be more of an issue for bow hunters, but I guess there is no National Archers Association.(NAA)

All I can say is it gets real interesting shooting a 200 pound Hog have it running for you while your shoving another Ball down the Barrel.Lucky for me it died at my feet.

oneshot

[Justin Spencer]

Hogs aren't deer, if you choose to shoot one with your muzzleloader you better make a good shot, or be up in a tree!

[jeb]

jeb, you're putting up a good fight, but I think it's a knee jerk position you're taking. If you remove your NRA-colored glasses, you could see this thing more clearly...obviously you're an unflinching supporter of the NRA and feel you have to back them no matter what.

Obviously complete BS here. I already stated I think they've been on the wrong side on things like cop killer bullets. It seems you are the one with the anti-NRA glasses on since you glazed over that in my replies.

[jeb]

Jeb, the scientists here are the MDC. You can see the results of their work every day. Make your decision on that basis.

As for science being "for sale", I can tell you as a scientist that is a highly offensive statement. I (like many other people in many other professions) have scars all over my body and a growing list of death threats from NOT selling out. Scientist do try not to starve, but most scientists I know make significant sacrifices to do their jobs with integrity...often over and against politics and narrow self interest. I and most environmental scientists I know never managed to care very much about money, but we do care about telling the truth based on data and objective analysis....

....no matter how much it makes you hate me.

Once I get a minute one of us should start the "takings" thread. That's a good topic and there is indeed some science to discuss there (along with some value judgments which are outside science but have a lot to do with how to move forward on those issues).

I'm confused. You say my statement is offensive and then go on to admit it's a pain to not sell out. So which is it?

Does anyone really think the scientist that said tobacco smoking was not harmful really, really believed that?

[jeb]

If you guys want to be really infuriated, you can read the NRA's side of the story here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6681 .

Wow, someone that actually posted a link to pertinent information! Thanks. I'll read it soon and respond.

[Tim Smith]

I'm confused. You say my statement is offensive and then go on to admit it's a pain to not sell out. So which is it?

Does anyone really think the scientist that said tobacco smoking was not harmful really, really believed that?

The fact is most scientists don't sell out.

If you're comparing the MDC to the tobacco industry scientists, you're up the wrong tree altogether.

[jeb]

The fact is most scientists don't sell out.

If you're comparing the MDC to the tobacco industry scientists, you're up the wrong tree altogether.

I never claimed most do. I said science is for sale these days, and I stand by that remark. You also seem to be backing up that claim with your responses. So the point is, you can't just take science at face value, no matter who it comes from. Politics and money are too interwined with science these days to take it at face value.

[Tim Smith]

I never claimed most do. I said science is for sale these days, and I stand by that remark. You also seem to be backing up that claim with your responses. So the point is, you can't just take science at face value, no matter who it comes from. Politics and money are too interwined with science these days to take it at face value.

No one takes information at face value in science, Jeb. That's the point of science. You test things and retest things and hone your understanding and reject hypotheses that don't stand up to scrutiny until you gradually arrive at the truth. Nothing I've said here redeems your position in the slightest.

If you decide you want to stand with the NRA against the MDC as an objective source of information and a worthy administrator of public resources that's your call.

I think that would be an exceptionally bad call.